Post COVID and Apheresis - Where are we Standing?

A continual increase in cases of Long/Post COVID constitutes a medical and socioeconomic challenge to health systems around the globe. While the true extent of this problem cannot yet be fully evaluated, recent data suggest that up to 20% of people with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 suffer from clinically relevant symptoms of Long/Post COVID several weeks to months after the acute phase. The clinical presentation is highly variable with the main symptoms being chronic fatigue, dyspnea, and cognitive symptoms. Extracorporeal apheresis has been suggested to alleviate symptoms of Post/COVID. Thus, numerous patients are currently treated with apheresis. However, at present there is no data from randomized controlled trials available to confirm the efficacy. Therefore, physicians rely on the experience of practitioners and centers performing this treatment. Here, we summarize clinical experience on extracorporeal apheresis in patients with Post/COVID from centers across Germany.

Apheresis as novel treatment for refractory angina with raised lipoprotein(a): a randomized controlled cross-over trial.

AIMS: To determine the clinical impact of lipoprotein apheresis in patients with refractory angina and raised lipoprotein(a) > 500 mg/L on the primary end point of quantitative myocardial perfusion, as well as secondary end points including atheroma burden, exercise capacity, symptoms, and quality of life. METHODS: We conducted a single-blinded randomized controlled trial in 20 patients with refractory angina and raised lipoprotein(a) > 500 mg/L, with 3 months of blinded weekly lipoprotein apheresis or sham, followed by crossover. The primary endpoint was change in quantitative myocardial perfusion reserve (MPR) assessed by cardiovascular magnetic resonance. Secondary endpoints included measures of atheroma burden, exercise capacity, symptoms and quality of life. RESULTS: The primary endpoint, namely MPR, increased following apheresis (0.47; 95% CI 0.31-0.63) compared with sham (-0.16; 95% CI - 0.33-0.02) yielding a net treatment increase of 0.63 (95% CI 0.37-0.89; P < 0.001 between groups). Improvements with apheresis compared with sham also occurred in atherosclerotic burden as assessed by total carotid wall volume (P < 0.001), exercise capacity by the 6 min walk test (P = 0.001), 4 of 5 domains of the Seattle angina questionnaire (all P < 0.02) and quality of life physical component summary by the short form 36 survey (P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Lipoprotein apheresis may represent an effective novel treatment for patients with refractory angina and raised lipoprotein(a) improving myocardial perfusion, atheroma burden, exercise capacity and symptoms.

Hypertriglyceridaemia: contemporary management of a neglected cardiovascular risk factor.

Hypertriglyceridaemia represents one of the most prevalent lipid abnormalities, however it is often eclipsed by focus on LDL cholesterol and is frequently overlooked by clinicians, despite it being an important cardiovascular risk factor. For most patients, hypertriglyceridaemia arises from a combination of environmental factors and multiple genetic variations with small effects. Even in cases with apparent familial clustering of hypertriglyceridaemia, a monogenetic cause is rarely identified. Common secondary causes include obesity, uncontrolled diabetes, alcohol, and various commonly used drugs. Correction of these factors, along with lifestyle optimisation, should be prioritised prior to commencing medication. The goal of drug treatment is to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease in those with moderate hypertriglyceridaemia and the risk of pancreatitis in those with severe hypertriglyceridaemia. Recent and ongoing trials demonstrate the important role of triglycerides (TG) in determining residual risk in patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) already established on statin therapy. Novel and emerging data on omega-3 fatty acids (high-dose icosapent ethyl) and the selective PPAR modulator pemafibrate are eagerly awaited and may provide further clarity for clinicians in determining which patients will benefit from TG lowering and help inform clinical guidelines. There are numerous novel therapies on the horizon that reduce TG by decreasing the activity of proteins that inhibit lipoprotein lipase such as apolipoprotein C-III (including Volanesorsen which was recently approved in Germany) and ANGPTL 3/4 which may offer promise for the future.

Oxidised LDL and Anti-Oxidised LDL Antibodies Are Reduced by Lipoprotein Apheresis in a Randomised Controlled Trial on Patients with Refractory Angina and Elevated Lipoprotein(a).

Aims: An abundance of epidemiological evidence demonstrates that elevated lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) represents a significant contributing risk factor towards the development of cardiovascular disease. In particular, raised Lp(a) may play a mechanistic role in patients with refractory angina. Studies have also shown a correlation between oxidised LDL (oxLDL) levels and atherosclerotic burden as well as rates of cardiovascular events. Antibodies against oxLDL (anti-oxLDL) are involved in the removal of oxLDL. Lipoprotein apheresis (LA), which removes lipoproteins using extra-corporeal processes, is an established means of reducing Lp(a), and thereby reduces cardiovascular events. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of LA on oxLDL and anti-oxLDL levels amongst those with refractory angina in the context of raised Lp(a). Methods: We performed a sub-study within a randomised controlled crossover trial involving 20 patients with refractory angina and raised Lp(a) > 500 mg/L, comparing the effect of three months of blinded weekly LA or sham, followed by crossover to the opposite study arm. We utilized enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) to quantify oxLDL and IgG/ IgM anti-oxLDL antibody levels at baseline and following three months of active LA or sham sessions. Results: Following three months of LA, there was a 30% reduction in oxLDL from 0.37 ± 0.06 to 0.26 ± 0.04 with a mean drop of -0.11 units (U) (95% CI -0.13, -0.09) compared to no significant change with sham therapy (p < 0.0001 between treatment arms). LA also led to a 22% reduction in levels of IgG and IgM anti-oxLDL, again with no significant change demonstrated during sham (p = 0.0036 and p = 0.012, respectively, between treatment arms). Conclusion: Amongst patients with refractory angina in the context of elevated Lp(a), LA significantly lowers levels of oxLDL and anti-oxLDL antibodies, representing potential mechanisms by which LA yields symptomatic and prognostic benefits in this patient cohort.

Prevalence of cardiovascular events in genetically confirmed versus unconfirmed familial hypercholesterolaemia.

Introduction: Genetic testing for familial hypercholesterolaemia (FH) is not yet established for widespread use internationally to provide diagnostic confirmation, in part due to high cost and resource requirement. We need to establish whether genetic testing is clinically justified in terms of risk stratification and prediction of cardiovascular events. Methods:We performed a single tertiary cardiac centre retrospective evaluation of patients with FH managed within our genetic screening service. We evaluated the prevalence of cardiovascular events in genetically confirmed cases of FH compared to those unconfirmed upon genetic testing, to assess whether gene positivity confers a higher risk phenotype. We also compared the clinical characteristics of the genetically confirmed and unconfirmed group. Results:Amongst adult patients (≥18 years) with genetically confirmed heterozygous FH (n=87), 34% (30/87) had one or more documented CV events. In comparison a lower event rate was observed in adult patients with genetically unconfirmed FH (n=170) with 25% (42/170) experiencing one or more documented CV events. Additional cardiovascular risk factors were more prevalent in the unconfirmed group including hypertension, co-morbidities, higher age and body mass index which may have modified the difference in cardiovascular risk. Conclusion:Genetic testing in FH may be clinically justified and appears to identify a subset of patients with higher risk of cardiovascular events. However, the risk difference is modified by alternative cardiovascular risk factors and co-morbidities which may be more prevalent in genetically unconfirmed FH.

Impact of lipoprotein apheresis on thrombotic parameters in patients with refractory angina and raised lipoprotein(a): Findings from a randomized controlled cross-over trial.

BACKGROUND: Raised lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is a cardiovascular risk factor common in patients with refractory angina. The apolipoprotein(a) component of Lp(a) exhibits structural homology with plasminogen and can enhance thrombosis and impair fibrinolysis. OBJECTIVES: The objective of the study was to assess the effect of lipoprotein apheresis on markers of thrombosis and fibrinolysis in patients with high Lp(a). METHODS: In a prospective, single-blind, crossover trial, 20 patients with refractory angina and raised Lp(a) > 50 mg/dL were randomized to three months of weekly lipoprotein apheresis or sham. Blood taken before and after apheresis/sham was assessed using the Global Thrombosis Test, to assess time taken for in vitro thrombus formation (occlusion time) and endogenous fibrinolysis (lysis time), as well as von Willebrand Factor, fibrinogen, D-dimer, thrombin/anti-thrombin III complex, prothrombin fragments 1 + 2, and thrombin generation assays. RESULTS: Lp(a) was significantly reduced by apheresis (100.2 [interquartile range {IQR}, 69.6143.0] vs 24.8 [17.2,34.0] mg/dL, P = .0001) but not by sham (P = .0001 between treatment arms). Apheresis prolonged occlusion time (576 ± 116 s vs 723 ± 142 s, P < .0001) reflecting reduced platelet reactivity and reduced lysis time (1340 [1128, 1682] s vs 847 [685,1302] s, P = .0006) reflecting enhanced fibrinolysis, without corresponding changes with sham. Apheresis, but not sham, reduced von Willebrand Factor (149 [89.0, 164] vs 64.2 [48.5, 89.8] IU/dL, P = .0001), and fibrinogen (3.12 ± 0.68 vs 2.20 ± 0.53 g/L, P < .0001), and increased prothrombin fragments 1 + 2 (158.16 [128.77, 232.09] vs 795.12 [272.55, 1201.00] pmol/L, P = .0006). There was no change in D-dimer, thrombin/anti-thrombin III complex, or thrombin generation assay with apheresis or sham. CONCLUSION: Lipoprotein apheresis reduces Lp(a) and improves some thrombotic and fibrinolytic parameters in patients with refractory angina.

The impact of lipoprotein apheresis in patients with refractory angina and raised lipoprotein(a): Objectives and methods of a randomised controlled trial.

It is well established that Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is an independent cardiovascular risk factor and predictor of major adverse cardiovascular events. Lipoprotein apheresis is currently the most effective approved treatment available, with minimal effect conferred by conventional lipid lowering agents. A growing body of evidence suggests that aggressively lowering raised Lp(a) may improve cardiovascular and clinical outcomes, although more prospective research is required in this field. Angina which is refractory to conventional medical therapy and revascularisation is extremely challenging to manage. There is a significant unmet need to establish therapeutic options. Our goal is to determine the impact of lipoprotein apheresis on clinical parameters and symptoms of patients with refractory angina secondary to advanced coronary disease and raised Lp(a). Determining whether we should aggressively lower Lp(a) in such patients remains a very important question, which could potentially impact on the management of a large population. We will also gain insight into how this treatment works and the mechanisms via which Lp(a) increases cardiovascular risk. We are currently conducting a prospective, randomised controlled crossover study of patients with refractory angina and raised Lp(a), randomised to undergoing three months of weekly lipoprotein apheresis or sham apheresis. Patients will then crossover to the opposite study arm after a 1 month wash-out phase. We will assess myocardial perfusion, carotid atherosclerosis, endothelial vascular function, thrombogenesis, oxidised LDL and their antibodies, exercise capacity, angina and quality of life at the beginning and end of treatment, to determine the net true treatment effect on the above parameters. This is a novel area of research, as previous studies have not assessed the role of lipoprotein apheresis in patients with refractory angina and raised Lp(a) in a prospective randomised controlled manner.

High prevalence of raised lipoprotein(a) in patients with refractory angina.

BACKGROUND: Angina that is refractory to conventional medical therapy and revascularisation, remains challenging to manage and poses significant burden to patients. Elevated lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] has emerged as an important independent cardiovascular risk factor and predictor of adverse outcomes in atherosclerotic disease. The prevalence of raised Lp(a) amongst patients with refractory angina has not yet been defined. OBJECTIVE: To establish the prevalence of raised [Lp(a)] >500 mg/L in patients with refractory angina. METHODS: We conducted an epidemiological screening pilot study in 75 patients with refractory angina from a UK tertiary cardiac centre. We determined the proportion of the cohort with raised Lp(a) >500 mg/L using an isoform-insensitive method. In addition, a full fasting lipid profile (including: LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, total cholesterol to HDL ratio and triglycerides) was obtained. Patients were also asked about the presence of conventional cardiovascular risk factors. RESULTS: Our study demonstrated that 60% of the 75 patients with refractory angina had raised Lp(a) levels of >500 mg/L. The median and inter-quartile range of Lp(a) values were 771 mg/L (162 mg/L,1260 mg/L) respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This high prevalence of raised Lp(a) detected in our cohort with refractory angina may suggest a causal role. Further research is necessary to confirm this association and prospective studies are needed to explore the potential therapeutic benefit of Lp(a) reduction in patients with refractory angina.

The expanding role of lipoprotein apheresis in the treatment of raised lipoprotein(a) in ischaemic heart disease and refractory angina.

It is increasingly recognised that lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)], an inherited, genetically-determined form of LDL-cholesterol, is an independent cardiovascular risk factor and predictor of adverse cardiovascular outcomes. Lp(a) is felt to increase cardiovascular risk via its pro-thrombotic effect and by enhancing intimal lipoprotein deposition. Lipoprotein apheresis is currently the most effective treatment for raised Lp(a). There is a growing body of evidence suggesting that aggressively lowering raised Lp(a) may improve cardiovascular and clinical outcomes, although much more research is required in this field. Angina which is refractory to conventional medical therapy and revascularisation, is extremely challenging to manage. Treatment options for such patients remain very limited. We describe the case of a patient with refractory angina and raised lipoprotein(a) in whom aggressive reduction of Lp(a) with lipoprotein apheresis successfully ameliorated the progression of coronary stenosis and provided effective and durable relief of angina symptoms. In our centre, we are currently conducting a prospective, randomised controlled cross-over study of patients with refractory angina and raised Lp(a), randomised to undergoing lipoprotein apheresis or 'sham' apheresis with assessment of myocardial perfusion, carotid atherosclerosis, endothelial vascular function, thrombogenesis, oxidised phospholipids and their antibodies, exercise capacity, angina symptoms and quality of life at the beginning and end of treatment.